Saturday 15 December 2012 12.16 EST
First published on Saturday 15 December 2012 12.16 EST

President Obama and his press secretary Jay Carney seldom convey divergent messages. And yet extraordinary events can beget unusual responses. Obama, in his brief statement on the horrific shootings at Sandy Hook, was visibly shaken. Millions of citizens were moved by the video of him speaking: he paused, wiped a tear from his eye, and struggled to finish his remarks.

But earlier, when Carney was asked whether it was finally time to revisit the long-buried issue of gun control, he demurred, noting that there will be a "day for discussion of the usual Washington policy debates, but I do not think today is that day".

Obama is famously calm and unflappable. To see him get choked up underscored the monstrousness of what had transpired. To hear him say, "As a country, we have been through this too many times", and to add that there would need to be "meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics", may have led some to expect that he will demand that Congress pass a law to prevent guns from being so readily available to troubled youths.

But the greater sense, by far, was that Carney had spoken for the administration. After four years of ignoring gun control, nothing would change. And so the American left was caught between two conflicting thoughts: that Obama is a humane leader, channelling his nation's emotions; and that he is a coward, unwilling to expend political capital on saving the lives of innocent children. Some were even offended by Obama's remarks, that he reacted not as a president, but as a parent. "Well, that's not good enough," retorted Paul Waldman and Jaime Fuller of the American Prospect, the influential liberal magazine "He's not just a parent, nor are the men and women in Congress. They're the ones who have the power to do something about it."

Americans who favour gun control can often seem outraged but also resigned. After all, it was just five months ago that a man walked into a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado and attacked the audience with multiple firearms. Twelve were murdered, 58 were wounded. There were calls for national action at the time and yet no action was taken. Gun control was barely even mentioned in the presidential campaign.

America has, of course, experienced the ugly side of its loose gun restrictions for decades. But the frequency of mass shootings has recently risen. Six of the 12 most deadly in history have been in the past five years. However, even seeing one of their own, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, victimised in such an event in 2011 did not spur Congress to take action. There have been 65 mass shootings since Giffords was wounded.

And yet this feels as though it may be different. This time, the shock is more extreme, the feeling more visceral and the political pivot – towards the need for greater gun control – faster and more focused. Perhaps it is because so many of the victims were kindergartners, only five years old. Perhaps, finally, it is because Americans can only tolerate so many senseless deaths from gun violence. Or perhaps gun control is just having a moment. Two weeks ago, after the footballer Jovan Belcher killed his girlfriend and himself, NBC sports announcer Bob Costas asked on national television whether gun culture was to blame; and at least seven NFL players reportedly turned in their guns in the week that followed.

Gun control enjoyed a brief spike in public awareness after some of the shootings in the 1990s. After a madman went on a killing spree on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993, Carolyn McCarthy – wife and mother to victims of the shooting – became an anti-gun activist. Eventually she won a congressional seat and became a leading advocate for gun control. A federal ban on assault weapons was passed in 1994, and the infamous shootings at Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado in 1999 seemed to reinforce the urgency of the issue.

But things changed. In 2000, many political observers attributed Al Gore's loss in West Virginia to the unpopularity of gun control in that rural state. The pro-gun lobby became ever more powerful, and declining crime rates caused the issue to slip from the public's mind. The assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004 and has not been renewed. This event alone will not make Congress come to its senses. The House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican party. The recent increase in devastating hurricanes has not changed their minds on global warming, so why should 20 dead children change their minds about gun control?

The Senate also has a strong rural bias: sparsely populated states, where gun control is less popular, get as many senators as California. What's more, rightwing ideologues on the US supreme court have recently broken with precedent and declared that the second amendment of the US constitution guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. (For most of US history it was understood by experts of every political persuasion to have been intended to ensure the right of states to arm a militia, not individuals to keep guns in one's home or one's person.)

For stricter gun control to be instituted in the US would require a mass movement. First, a clear majority of Americans would have to be persuaded, and then they would have to apply sufficient pressure that either Republicans shift their position or Democrats retake Congress and develop the fortitude to pass laws.

And to stop events such as Sandy Hook would require more than just reinstating the assault weapons ban. The gunman, Adam Lanza, used pistols taken from his mother's house and legally registered in her name. Americans would have to accept what their counterparts in other developed countries have: that even law-abiding citizens should not possess guns, because once they are in circulation they do more harm than good.

Should such a movement take off, it will have leaders at the ready. Congresswoman McCarthy said on Friday that she had already warned the White House before the election that she will be pressuring Obama to advance gun control legislation, and publicly "embarrassing" him on the subject if necessary. Former Congresswoman Giffords's husband Mark Kelly wrote on his Facebook page: "This time our response must consist of more than regret, sorrow, and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook elementary school and all victims of gun violence deserve leaders who have the courage to participate in a meaningful discussion about our gun laws."

It is telling that the most vociferous advocates of gun control are the spouses of shooting victims. It reminds us that long after politicians and the public have moved on and largely forgotten, the victims and their loved ones have not. If enough of their country join them in staying committed to this issue, change may eventually come.

Ben Adler, a US political commentator, writes for the Nation

•This article was amended on 15 December 2012. The original said that the Gabrielle Giffords shooting happened in 2009. This has been corrected